Bates v. The People of the State of California
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 17.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Report and Recommendation regarding a state prisoner's mixed habeas corpus petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims. The court adopted the recommendation, denied the respondent's motion to dismiss without prejudice, and construed the petitioner's subsequent filing as an election to stay federal proceedings while he exhausts his claims in state court.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation“The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, finds that the Petition contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims, and DENIES Respondent’s motion to dismiss without prejudice.” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for reviewing a Report and Recommendation. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, the district judge must make a de novo determination of portions of the report to which objection is made. Since no objections were filed, the court reviewed the report for clear error or accepted it as accurate. The court found the report 'accurate' and 'well-reasoned,' which is the appropriate procedural posture when no specific objections are raised to trigger a full de novo re-evaluation of the facts, though the legal conclusion (mixed petition) is subject to de novo review regardless. The adoption is procedurally sound. |
Denial of Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice“The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, finds that the Petition contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims, and DENIES Respondent’s motion to dismiss without prejudice.” | de novo | agree with court The denial of the motion to dismiss is consistent with the procedural options available for 'mixed' habeas petitions (containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A), a federal court may not consider an unexhausted claim unless the petitioner has exhausted state remedies or is excused from doing so. However, courts have discretion to stay proceedings to allow exhaustion (the 'stay and abeyance' option) or to dismiss without prejudice. By denying the motion to dismiss, the court preserved the petitioner's ability to choose among the four options identified by the Magistrate Judge, including staying the case. This is a permissible exercise of discretion to avoid the inefficiency of dismissal and refiling, particularly for a pro se litigant who has indicated an intent to exhaust. |
Construction of Petitioner's Filing as an Election to Stay Proceedings“The Court construes the notice as Petitioner’s election to pursue the fourth option: to stay the federal proceedings.” | unclear | agree with court The court construed the petitioner's 'Notice to Withdraw Pending Completion of Unexhausted Claims, But Remain in Federal Court Pending Completion' as an election to stay the federal proceedings. This is a reasonable interpretation of the pro se litigant's intent to preserve the federal case while exhausting state remedies. The court noted that because the petitioner had already made an election, it did not need to send a separate order notifying him of his options. This procedural step is consistent with managing mixed petitions and ensuring the petitioner's rights are protected without unnecessary delay. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the standard of review for the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. It accurately characterizes the petition as a 'mixed' petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims. The denial of the motion to dismiss without prejudice is a permissible exercise of discretion that allows the petitioner to pursue the 'stay and abeyance' option, which is a recognized method for handling mixed petitions. The court's construction of the petitioner's subsequent filing as an election to stay proceedings is reasonable and responsive to the petitioner's stated intent to remain in federal court while exhausting state claims. The order is concise but addresses all necessary procedural steps.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 GILBERT JOSEPH BATES, Case No.: 18cv1563-MMA (MSB)
11 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 12 v. RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE; 13 DANIEL A. PARAMO, WARDEN, 14 Respondent. [Doc. No. 17]
15 DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTION 16 TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
17 [Doc. No. 12] 18 19 20 21 Petitioner Gilbert Joseph Bates (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 22 has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Doc. 23 No. 1. On July 9, 2018, Petitioner filed his First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas 24 Corpus (“Petition”). See Doc. No. 5. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the Petition, 25 to which Petitioner filed an opposition. See Doc. Nos. 12, 16. The matter was referred to 26 United States Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg for preparation of a Report and 27 Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Civil Local Rule HC.2. Judge 28 Berg has issued a thorough Report recommending that the Court find that the Petition 1 contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims and that the Court deny Respondent’s 2 motion to dismiss without prejudice. See Doc. No. 17. Judge Berg further identified four 3 options for Petitioner to choose from to avoid dismissal of his Petition. Specifically, 4 Petitioner can: (1) demonstrate exhaustion; (2) voluntarily dismiss the Petition; (3) 5 formally abandon his unexhausted claims; or (4) file a motion to stay the federal 6 proceedings. See id. Judge Berg recommended that Petitioner be sent an Order 7 specifying his options with regard to a mixed petition and be given thirty days from the 8 Undersigned’s final order on the Report and Recommendation to inform the Court of 9 how he intends to proceed. See id. at 10. 10 Pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 11 636(b)(1), the Court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . 12 . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, 13 the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge].” 28 U.S.C. § 14 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). 15 Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due no later than August 9, 2019. 16 To date, no objections have been filed.1 17 Accordingly, the Court finds that Judge Berg has issued an accurate Report and 18 well-reasoned recommendation that the Court: (1) find that the Petition contains both 19 exhausted and unexhausted claims; and (2) deny Respondent’s motion to dismiss without 20 prejudice. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, finds that the Petition 21 contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims, and DENIES Respondent’s motion to 22 dismiss without prejudice. 23 On August 7, 2019, Petitioner filed a document entitled, “Notice to Withdraw 24 Pending Completion of Unexhausted Claims, But Remain in Federal Court Pending 25 Completion.” See Doc. No. 21. In his notice, Petitioner indicates that he “will withdraw 26 27 28 1 The Clerk of Court served Petitioner with a copy of the Report and Recommendation via U.S. 1 from the Southern District to go back down to the lower court to exhaust his unexhausted 2 claims.” Id. at 1. Petitioner cites page 9 of Judge Berg’s Report and Recommendation 3 and asserts that “his claims will remain in federal court during the pendency of the state 4 court’s collateral review of [his] claims.” Id. The Court construes the notice as 5 Petitioner’s election to pursue the fourth option: to stay the federal proceedings. Because 6 Petitioner is aware of his options and has already made an election as to how he would 7 like to proceed, the Court need not notify Petitioner of his options at this time. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: August 16, 2019 12 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28